Ernest Schaal wrote:

> in article 40EA4B2C.9050002@hotmail.com, Declan Murphy at
> declan_murphy@hotmail.com wrote on 7/6/04 3:48 PM:
> 
>>Ernest Schaal wrote:
>>
>>>For instance, in the US, if you are born there then you are a citizen. That
>>>is the exception, not the rule. Being born in Japan doesn't necessarily make
>>>one a Japanese citizen.
>>
>>So what? The issue here is whether a parent (a Japanese citizen) can
>>keep his (legally adopted) kid in the country where he (the
>>parent/citizen) and the kid's only family (he and her grandmother) live.
>>The citizenship of the kid isn't relevant here.
> 
> The point I was making is that each country can determine who is a citizen
> and who is not, and if a person is not a citizen then that country can
> deport the non-citizen and/or refuse re-admittance of a non-citizen who has
> left the country.

The point I was making was that *in the context* of this issue your 
point isn't particularly relevant. We aren't talking about an immigrant, 
or an asylum seeker, the kid is the legal dependant of a Japanese 
national and currently in Japan - there is no particular reason why PR 
status shouldn't be granted, or a bridging equivalent. A Japanese 
citizen or legal foreign resident should have every right to expect that 
their children will not be forcibly separated from them through no fault 
of their own. That the issue has even become news at all suggests that 
the current legal immigration legal framework has cracks people can fall 
through.

>>>But cheer up. The Immigration service has granted her an extension as it
>>>readdresses her case.
>>
>>As they bloody well should.
> 
> You might think they should, but they don't have to do as you demand.

Of course they don't. However whether it be here or otherwise I still 
will demand that unless laws and bureaucracies conform to the needs of 
families and not the other way around, they should be amended.


-- 
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on"